Or maybe it wasn’t written well?

“Simplified Privacy is here to help with a VPN solution that can obscure your browser fingerprint and enable you to step back and more clearly see discrimination.”

That sounded like hawking a specific product; I’m sure you could understand why.

You are arguing in the article that a VPN helps obscuring your browser fingerprint - and then say in your response to me that it can’t.

Don’t get me wrong - I support the aims of what you’re trying to achieve. My criticism is to address specific points in the article, not reject your noble aim.

I’m sure a lot of this is going on … but this article is pretty poor.

First of all, they are hawking a VPN product. So it is in their interest to make the problem seem big.

Second, they argue VPN can shield against cookies. That’s to do with the browser, not the connection.

Third, their frequent use of the loaded “artificial intelligence” just bothers me … most of the algorithms they describe has nothing to do with AI/ML, but sounds like fairly simple, rules-based decisions. In fact, if I was interested is giving a discount to people who lived close to a competitor of mine, training an ML algorithm to do it sounds error-prone and poor.

I can recommend them. Have had one attached to my keychain for years and it’s still working just fine. Be advised that there’s an in-built dichotomy, in that you always need to keep a backup of your key, ideally offsite (mine is with my in-laws), but you also can’t duplicate one key to another (by its very design) … so they work best when you’re using them an a unlock for a password/passkey manager, where you just set it up once, rather than using it as a 2FA everywhere. If you go down the “I’ll employ my yubikey everywhere I can”, you’ll quickly find your backup key going out of date (thereby no longer being a backup key).